Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA27691 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:51:23 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745943@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy? Israel and Palesti ne. Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:49:27 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
These are not fundamental categorisations, these are your idiolectic
categorisations, and merely supports the main point of my last post.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 3:27 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy? Israel and
> Palestine.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Vincent Campbell
> > Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2000 8:29
> > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> > Subject: RE: Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?
> >
> >
> > Ok, I think I've finally understood what he's saying, but I still
> > think, so
> > what?
> >
> > I'm tempted to go into another attempt to explain why I don't think this
> > offers anything helpful, but I'll try and keep it short, and try
> > a different
> > tack. What it boils down to, for me, is that it simply replaces
> > one set of
> > categorisations (of whatever discipline, or disciplines you like) for
> > another.
>
> sort of. It actually shows you the fundamental set of categorisations that
> all others are made from. Many of the 'other' categorisations are derived
> from heuristic processes. Understanding the underlying structure makes
> this
> task a lot easier.
>
> However alliterative and pleasant to say one makes these terms
> > (all the Bs :-)) how does that actually get 'behind',
> > 'underneath' etc. etc.
> > except to make rather obvious statements that humans are limited
> > perceptually by being human, and that we construct the world in terms of
> a
> > basic categorisation of same/different?
> >
>
> There is a structure involved in that ANY dichotomy will automatically
> 'create' an instance of that structure and analysis will fill in the
> spaces,
> connect the dots. That structure becomes the source of meaning and as such
> again serves as a guide to fleshing-out raw concepts in that it gives you
> patterns to look for since all possible patterns of meaning are already
> present, determined by the neurology even if only generally.
>
> By understanding this ONE format so you can quickly get the ideas 'behind'
> all other formats since all others are metaphors, particularisations for
> the
> ONE.
>
> The bind-bound-bond-blend development path alone is worth understanding
> since it seems to be the 'standard' development pattern moving from many
> to
> one (and in reverse one-to-many). This pattern is not restricted to
> Darwinism etc, it is a fundamental pattern that is encoded in our ideas
> and
> in their generation.
>
> There are no disciplines that I am aware of that give you this level of
> precision in analysing themselves as well as other disciplines since we
> are
> dealing here with bedrock.
>
> One point to reflect upon is that since there exists the distinction of ME
> and NOT ME so all decision making, all predictions, will be expressed in
> terms that map to the template and as such the template gives you all
> possible patterns that can emerge from any point in time; thus it can be
> used to predict as well as clarify things.
>
> For example, using the bind-bound-bond-blend pattern (b1-b2-b3-b4) let us
> reflect on the current Israeli/Palestine situation.
>
> The template material, applied to ANY dichotomy, asks three questions of
> any
> state and with that can determine where on a path the situation is and so
> HOW to get to the next state if there is a blockage or you need things to
> go
> a bit faster.
>
> (Q1) Is the concept in question dealing with facts or values? Based on
> what
> has been going on in the area for over fifty years (and more) the emphasis
> is on VALUES expressed in the form of LAND ownership. (you can select
> facts
> if you wish but watch...) The overall emphasis is very SOCIAL, GROUP
> rather
> than particular, individual.
>
> (Q2) IS the concept about what 'was/is/will be' or about 'what could have
> been/is NOT/ could be'? I would say the former, it is about what is/will
> be
> in that BOTH parties have their own agendas and are not really into what
> could be.
>
> (Q3) IS the concept proactive or reactive? I would say reactive in that it
> was the US that was proactive to organise a meeting; prior to that all
> meetings etc where more reactive between the isrealis and the
> palastinians.
>
> These three questions, interpreted this way, reflect a state found in the
> template called contractive BOUNDING. This state deals with containment
> and
> control and is linked to MBTI types that emphasise
> preservation/conservation.
>
> This puts the current state of affairs at the BOUND position heading
> towards
> BOND and then BLEND (All previus work delt with BINDING, getting the two
> parties to talk in the first place). The bound position emphasises
> BOUNDARIES and in this particular scenario, Isreal/Palestine, that is the
> primary sticking point at the moment. How do we change this? How can we
> change this BOUND into a BOND?
>
> Looking at the SYMBOLISM (the I Ching material) the above questions map to
> a
> symbol called water, the abysmal. It looks like this:
>
> ___ ___
> _________
> ___ ___
>
> (yin line over a yang line over a yin line). This symbol has been created
> from the three questions asked where Q1 is YIN and is represented by a
> broken line in the BOTTOM position. Q2 is YANG and is represented by the
> middle position. Q3 is YIN and is represented by the top position. The
> format of the three questions has been derived after a lot of work and is
> based on how our brain starts to process data that is particular, a whole.
> The base line is the fundamental, very hard to change and the distinction
> of
> facts/values is what drives gender differences for example.
>
> To continue, noting the development pattern of B1-B2-B3-B4, we need to get
> to the BOND symbol (B3) and it looks like this:
>
> _________
> ___ ___
> ___ ___
>
> (yang line over a yin line over a yin line). This trigram is called
> mountain.
>
> TO get from BOUND to BOND requires two changes, the form of the top TWO
> lines. Relating these to the questions, Q2 and Q3 in particular. What does
> this say?
>
> Firstly Q2 needs to be changed from what WILL be to what COULD be. Since
> both parties are very 'will be' at the moment this will require a little
> trickary in the form of saying 'ok lets PRETEND for a minute regarding the
> process of alternatives to the two we have.'
>
> Once you get a 'could be' agreement you have changed the format of Q2 and
> so
> line 2.
>
> Now, Q3 needs to be changed from a reactive state to a proactive state.
> This
> is best done by an emphasis on the hope/anticipate dichotomy where firstly
> we emphasise HOPE and once that is established we then manipulate this
> dichotomy by moving from the reactiveness in HOPE to the PROACTIVENESS in
> anticipation; that is the only change requires to shift one from hope to
> anticipation, to move from leaning back in your chair to leaning forwards.
>
> By just changing these two lines you will shift the whole situation from
> BOUND to BOND and that will be a shift towards total trust in others since
> the b1-b2-b3-b4 sequence with a VALUES base is all about
> distrust_of_others
> to TOTAL_trust_of_others. (the YANG sequence deals with trust in
> yourself).
>
> Overall the current context is governed by the trigram of water, of
> contractive bounding, and it is interesting to drop down a few levels and
> see what other states are within this one. In particular there is a blend
> state that deals with finding compromise (hexagram 6) and a another blend
> state that deals with establishing uniformity AKA the ARMY. Note the
> overall
> containment-control emphasis.
>
> IF you can move to BOND you move to self-restraint-discernment as the main
> emphasis. That is another story but I think that this simple description
> of
> the template gives a good idea as to what is going on and has NOT come
> from
> in depth analysis of the middle east but from the simple, general,
> categorisation and so establishment of an overall context that is
> influencing things (contractive bounding) and by knowing the properties of
> that, being able to link the dots.
>
> I hope this has helped in demonstrating the ease in which this system can
> work as well the quality of the data it can generate that we, at the
> particular level, can then work with (in this case changing the top two
> lines :-))
>
> best,
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
>
> >
> >
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 20 2000 - 15:52:12 BST